[FRIAM] Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

[Marcus Daniels]

I guess I should be concrete.   Suppose the instruction set is 6502.

Below, if we start at the first position, A9, the A register would be loaded with the value A0, then there would be relative branch.   However, if we start executing at the second, A0, the Y register would be loaded with 10 and then there would be subroutine call.   One could imagine modeling the effects with a constraint solver to embed two distinct programs in the same byte sequence.   Neither would be encrypted, but one of them wouldn’t be visible without changing the readers reference frame.   I don’t think a reverse engineer would spot it just from a disassembly.

A9 A0 10 20 10


From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Date: Friday, May 29, 2020 at 9:23 PM
To: "friam at redfish.com" <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

Marcus,

you write:
The experience of being out-of-phase with a conversation has the same gist.

You summarized much of my experience with Friam. Can you say more about
how it is like homomorphic encryption, but in plain sight? There is a sense that homomorphic encryption (relative to the privacy discussion) is in plain sight
(public key), so I am guessing you have something different in mind.

Jon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200530/605c20b8/attachment.html>